"I don't see any talk about impeachment here." As Always Diamond hits it oon the head

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Dreadsox

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
10,885
"I don't see any talk about impeachment here." As Always Diamond hits it oon the head

[Q]Specter Vows a Close Look at Spy Program

By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: January 16, 2006
WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 - Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said Sunday that Republicans would not grant President Bush "a blank check" in seeking to determine whether the domestic eavesdropping program that Mr. Bush authorized after the Sept. 11 attacks violated the law.

"Just because we're of the same party doesn't mean we're not going to look at this closely," Mr. Specter said in an appearance on "This Week" on ABC. Mr. Specter is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which plans to hold hearings on the matter next month, with witnesses to include Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

The program authorized by Mr. Bush bypassed a special federal court whose approval is required under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for domestic eavesdropping operations. Mr. Specter has said he does not agree with the White House view that Congress effectively authorized the surveillance, which was carried out by the National Security Agency, in a resolution passed shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Specter said Sunday that he was still considering the question of whether a president might possess special powers under wartime that would have allowed Mr. Bush to circumvent the surveillance act. He said that if Mr. Bush were found to have acted illegally, he would most likely face "a political price" rather than a more severe sanction, in part because of broad support of the administration's antiterrorism efforts.

"I don't see any talk about impeachment here," Mr. Specter said. "I don't think anybody doubts that the president is making a good faith effort here, that he sees a real problem, as we all do, and he's acting in a way that he feels he must."

The timing and scope for any Congressional inquiry into the eavesdropping remains unclear. Mr. Specter is the only chairman who has publicly promised to hold hearings, but he has said his panel will focus on legal questions, not the more highly classified details of the operation.

A date for the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings has not yet been set. In both the Senate and House, the Intelligence Committees are also considering whether to call witnesses to talk about the eavesdropping program.
[/Q]
 
I'm not sure of the strategic sense in impeaching Bush at this point, it sends out the wrong message to the enemies of the West. I don't want Bush impeached. Embarassed a little - yes.
 
People can identify with cheating husbands...on the other hand I think after 9/11 the public subconsciously wants the Middle Eastern people in this country to be wiretapped as a precaution, even if they won't admit it. The media has also done a good job of dumbing it down so that the average viewer thinks it's just a matter of whether or not you're okay with being wiretapped (most people are because they figure they've done nothing wrong anyway). So the media (particularly FOX) seems to have effectively taken the focus off of the actual issue. The issue isn't whether the President should be able to wiretap those that may be remotely involved in terrorism, because the FISA courts allows for that and then some. Just judging by the statistics as far as how many requests for a warrant the FISA court has ever turned down, I think it's fair to say that anyone that wouldn't have been approved by that court is someone the government has no place in wiretapping. And that's the real issue here, but I get the feeling the public won't react to it in that way. It's just not as good of material as the blowjob, dress stain, lying husband etc.

That said, financeguy does have a point...I read the book by Leon Jaworski, and despite the fact that Nixon not only broke the law but used it for clearly sinister purposes, throughout the process, Jaworski continued to choose his actions based not only on law but also on this notion of what was "best for the country" and what the country could handle. I don't think impeaching Bush would necessarily be a good thing (unlikely to happen anyway, imo).
 
Last edited:
financeguy said:
I'm not sure of the strategic sense in impeaching Bush at this point, it sends out the wrong message to the enemies of the West. I don't want Bush impeached. Embarassed a little - yes.

Are you joking?

We're "spreading" democracy and we're showing the world that constitutions really don't matter...this is the right message?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Are you joking?

We're "spreading" democracy and we're showing the world that constitutions really don't matter...this is the right message?

No I'm not joking but I can understand why you might think that. Impeaching Bush, even though in my view he was questionably elected, sends out the wrong message to Islamist terrorists and would be a moral victory for them and thus weakens the West. The Democrats should by all means continue to keep a close eye on the Bush adminstration but I would be concerned about the destabilising effect of a protracted impeachment proceeding - particulary as the VP (and thus Bush's presumed replacement if he was forced to resign) has a heart condition.
 
financeguy said:


Impeaching Bush, even though in my view he was questionably elected, sends out the wrong message to Islamist terrorists and would be a moral victory for them and thus weakens the West.

I think this mentality weakens the west. I think justifying the compromise of democracy by worrying about giving moral victory to terrorists is extremely dangerous.

We've already given moral victory to the enemy by saying the only way we can find you is if we break our own laws...hell they're probably laughing at us right now.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Are you joking?

We're "spreading" democracy and we're showing the world that constitutions really don't matter...this is the right message?

Financeguy's comments were about the message to the enemies of the West.

I would guess that the enemies of the West would be amused that a leader would challenged based on passive methods used to track an enemy (or for lying under oath about sex).

The response may be "we don't need to attack, the infidels will take out Bush for us!"
 
nbcrusader said:


Financeguy's comments were about the message to the enemies of the West.


I didn't realize they're running our country now? They must be ecstatic to know their opinion means that much to us...
 
But they will approve a Supreme Court nominee who seemingly would give him a blank check :shrug: the bottom line is that fear works, and people are still afraid after 9/11. And if they're not afraid, the Bush administration is always reminding them to be afraid.

Forget Reagan being the teflon President, the real teflon President seems to be George W. Bush.
 
financeguy said:


No I'm not joking but I can understand why you might think that. Impeaching Bush, even though in my view he was questionably elected, sends out the wrong message to Islamist terrorists and would be a moral victory for them and thus weakens the West. The Democrats should by all means continue to keep a close eye on the Bush adminstration but I would be concerned about the destabilising effect of a protracted impeachment proceeding - particulary as the VP (and thus Bush's presumed replacement if he was forced to resign) has a heart condition.

No, it won't weaken the west. It would show that we can handle freedom. We can survive as a country even if the president is breaking the law and Congress decides that that's what happened and they therefore have to impeach. Remember, impeachment is trying the President, not removing him from office. Clinton was impeached but not removed from office.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
But they will approve a Supreme Court nominee who seemingly would give him a blank check :shrug: the bottom line is that fear works, and people are still afraid after 9/11. And if they're not afraid, the Bush administration is always reminding them to be afraid.

Forget Reagan being the teflon President, the real teflon President seems to be George W. Bush.

I agree, and it's very frustrating.
 
Al Gore's speech today was fantastic. How I wish he had been able to be our President instead of the idiot the Supreme Court gave us. He had a great point about fear. And he nailed my question as to why fear has worked so well for this admin.

A portion:
Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women."

The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.

Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.

We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive Branch and the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.

I endorse the words of Bob Barr, when he said, "The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will."

A special counsel should immediately be appointed by the Attorney General to remedy the obvious conflict of interest that prevents him from investigating what many believe are serious violations of law by the President. We have had a fresh demonstration of how an independent investigation by a special counsel with integrity can rebuild confidence in our system of justice. Patrick Fitzgerald has, by all accounts, shown neither fear nor favor in pursuing allegations that the Executive Branch has violated other laws.
 
^that's a good speech.

I don't know, I do hope he suffers for it politically at least, I just don't see it happening...

It will be interesting to see how the mid-term elections go, with this on top of the many other scandals.

Also we still don't have the full facts regarding the wiretapping scandal...as far as what he was using it for, etc.
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:


Financeguy's comments were about the message to the enemies of the West.

I would guess that the enemies of the West would be amused that a leader would challenged based on passive methods used to track an enemy (or for lying under oath about sex).

The response may be "we don't need to attack, the infidels will take out Bush for us!"



i don't think it matters what happens domestically -- our "enemies" will apply their spin doctors to any internal events as proof of the success of their war on the US and the West.

so, ignore them, and follow the law.

impeachment over blow jobs is silly and made us look like prissy puritans; impeachment over violation of the constitution is another matter, and if anything, it would reaffirm our core values -- which is to say the US Constitution -- in the face of those who would seek to undermine and destroy everything that document stands for.
 
Scarletwine said:
Al Gore's speech today was fantastic. How I wish he had been able to be our President instead of the idiot the Supreme Court gave us. He had a great point about fear. And he nailed my question as to why fear has worked so well for this admin.

Stop blaming the supreme court....

If Al won his HOME STATE, he would have been President.
 
Irvine511 said:


impeachment over blow jobs is silly and made us look like prissy puritans; impeachment over violation of the constitution is another matter, and if anything, it would reaffirm our core values -- which is to say the US Constitution -- in the face of those who would seek to undermine and destroy everything that document stands for.

well, by lying under oath (sort of) clinton broke the law, didn't he? the difference is that many people think it was kind of a dumb personal scandal. but he still broke the law. similarly, many people won't find illegal wiretapping by the president in a time of war to be a big deal, until it's proven to have been used to spy on political opponents or the like. of course, many of these people won't be familiar with the role of the FISA courts, but that's not the point. in both cases whether or not the President technically broke the law can be agreed upon by many people and you'll still have people that believe it's worthy or not worthy of real punishment.

of course I think this is a bigger deal, but I'm not sure if the American public will, depending on what else is revealed about the program...
 
Al Gore invented Interference.:wink: Even if Gore had been elected do you think 9/11 would have never happened??? If Gore had been in office, he probably would be doing the same thing. He would "probably" be in Iraq also with the same info Bush recieved. Remember before Invading Iraq, Kerry had said Iraq was a threat, as did Clinton and other Politicians, who then backtracked on what they said.
 
Irvine511 said:
impeachment over blow jobs is silly and made us look like prissy puritans; impeachment over violation of the constitution is another matter, and if anything, it would reaffirm our core values -- which is to say the US Constitution -- in the face of those who would seek to undermine and destroy everything that document stands for.

We look like prissy puritans as long as we continue to recharacterize Clinton's actions as "getting a blow job". Lying under oath was the core issue - the fact that it involved a sexual act stems from the sexual harrassment claims brought against Clinton.
 
nbcrusader said:
We look like prissy puritans as long as we continue to recharacterize Clinton's actions as "getting a blow job". Lying under oath was the core issue - the fact that it involved a sexual act stems from the sexual harrassment claims brought against Clinton.


Yes - the lying under oath is what they were nailing him on but they were dragging this all into court over his sexual activities. So boiling it down to getting impeached over a blow job is an over simplicifcation, but it does sum it up awfully well.

And it is just another example of the hypocrisy of power. The Republicans had the power to impeach Clinton over a blow job because they were looking for a way to reduce his power. Democrats don't have the power now to really effect any impact on Bush even though HE IS BREAKING THE LAW and VIOLATING CONSITUTIONAL RIGHTS. His own party is not going to do it because it's power and politics.
 
Last edited:
YellowKite said:
Yes - the lying under oath is what they were nailing him on but they were dragging this all into court over his sexual activities. So boiling it down to getting impeached over a blow job is an over simplicifcation, but it does sum it up awfully well.

Only if you believe sexual harrassment is insignificant.

I guess there was a different standard for Robert Packwood.
 
Back
Top Bottom